Hey, there! Log in / Register
We can't have New Hampshirites overseeing our bloody Marys: Friendly Toast hits snag on path to all day breakfasting in the Back Bay
By adamg on Wed, 07/01/2015 - 11:33am
The Boston Licensing Board said today it will hold off any action on a proposed liquor license for a Friendly Toast on Stanhope Street today because the manager proposed for the restaurant is a New Hampshire resident, and Massachusetts regulations require all managers of restaurants with liquor licenses to live in state.
On learning of the requirement, Friendly Toast lawyer Joshua Bowman said his client would come back with a Bay Stater as manager, rather than its original idea - making the manager of its Portsmouth outlet manager of the Back Bay location
The Friendly Toast, which hopes to move into the space now occupied by Zocalo Cocina, needs board permission to buy Zocalo's liquor license so it can serve the bloody Marys and mimosas that Bowman said "rule the day" at a place that serves breakfast all day.
The Stanhope Street restaurant would be Friendly Toast's third location. In addition to Portsmouth, it has been slinging hash and other breakfast foods for five years now in Kendall Square.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Don't blame the licensing board for this
State law. Go talk to your legislator if it offends.
But you can blame the Licensing Board
for not advising the applicant of the requirement BEFORE they actually held the hearing.
They should know the law
This isn't the first restaurant they have had or the first license in MA. If anything, blame their lawyer.
These sorts of restrictions are surprisingly common.
Still doesn't justify the Licensing Board
waiting until they hold a hearing on the application to notify the applicant they don't meet certian requirements of the law. Perhaps the Licensing Board should go back to "how you review and process a permit or license application" school.
agreed
there is not a single benefit to not having that information fully disclosed. if they made a top 10 FAQ pamphlet i wonder how much time and money theyd save
Merits of the law aside, that
Merits of the law aside, that one is on counsel for the applicant. He is literally paid to know that kind of basic information and provide to his client. From what Adam posted, it's not clear to me that the board would have known the manager's address prior to the hearing, but who knows. Either way, it's on the lawyer.
Yup
It is literally why you pay a lawyer. Not to know all of the law, but rather to research the applicable statutes and ensure you conform, before you have your application rejected in front of an open hearing. By the time you get to the hearing, if your application is even in doubt due to statutory reasons you have a shitty lawyer.
So a business owner now needs to hire
a lawyer just to submit a freakin' application to the City. Another example of government bureauracy at its worst, which seems to be par for the course for the Licensing Board.
As a contrast to this "you should already know what's required before you apply" mentality of the Licensing Board in regards to applications, consider MassDOT and their highway services signing program (the blue LOGO signs you see on freeways). In addition to the applications for the various sign categories, they have a publically available policy document. This document clearly and concisely spells out to a business owner all the legal and procedural requirements, as well as their responsibilities (including costs and fees), that they must conform to in order to be considered for signing. No lawyers required at all.
And, with respect, I still maintain that not informing the business (or their legal counsel) that their application doesn't meet the minimal requirements until they show up for a formal hearing is, at best, very bad procedure. At worst, it is just plain idiotic.
It's a Bar
I only saw the pun as I typed that.
But honestly, it's a restaurant, serving alcohol. They would infinitely stupid not to have a lawyer on retainer with everything pertaining to alcohol and all the ills that can occur serving and drinking it. And you know what? They probably do, but didn't think this application process required them paying the lawyer.
Furthermore, I don't know the application process for a liquor license or buying an existing one, but is it possible that the procedure is long to get on the docket that they might not have known which manager they would be going with when they started it? (yes, this is an argument in favor of the Friendly Toast, I tend to look at all sides of a potential issue, good and bad, benefit of the doubt and all that)
I agree it makes sense for
a restaurant that serves alcohol to have a lawyer on retainer. But my point still stands - it shouldn't be necessary for said restaurant to rely on said lawyer in order to submit an application to gain the City's "mother may I permission" to open the restaurant and/or serve alcohol
MA is very very concerned that it's attorneys
..have plenty of rubes to fleece.
The entire aim of law craft here rests on a century or more of glorified pettifogging grifters inserting items to make sure their profession stays flush through thick and thin.
The Medical Marijuana hang up is basically due to attorneys crafting toxic metal test rules without even seeing if facilities exist to test for same. Wouldn't want antimony in your vape, would you?
It should be noted that NO OTHER STATE saw fit to do this and it's not about how extra rigorous and diligent we are.
It might be additionally noted that no outbreaks of toxic metal inhalation have been reported anywhere in places that are less rigorous.
Charlie Baker actually gave a place in Salem a waiver on the "Polonium test requirement".
And of course, this is entre to more billable hours to craft regs for the toxic metal testing site certification.
By the time these leeches are done, it'll be legal anyway.
NH restaurant booze laws are very simple.
And they are the same from Portsmouth to Pittsburgh. You have to serve food and then a license is just another permit like your food sanitation sticker.
If you don't want to serve food, you have to make a private membership club and buy your booze retail from the State.
The place just doesn't put a lot of expensive gates in the way.
They've had management change-over confusion..
The original owners went to Detroit.
A friend of mine sells them all their kitsch antique stuff. The sale had problems and quarrels. And they are from New Hampshire, which has fairly uniform laws and codes.
The Commonwealth 'fiefdom' system may not be something they understand. Hell, Boston is probably hard for people in other parts of Mass to figure out.
Need a better counselor
I would blame the lawyer representing the applicant for not knowing the rules.
I'd prefer to talk to the
I'd prefer to talk to the author of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
INSANE
INSANE
More officious than insane
Insane would be laws like Virginia has, where two same-gender people kissing in a bar can result in a full revocation of liquor license.
REALLY???
I'd love more details.....that truly is insane.
That law hasn't been enforcable in VA for 25 years.
See here.
Still on the books
Would you put it past some billybob cop to attempt to enforce it? In this current news cycle? In fact, my BFF in Roanoke said that a local Sheriff was publicly threatening to enforce it (going to businesses and "informing them of the law") as a ploy to prevent gay weddings in restaurants!
Read some Joe Badgeant some time if you want to hear about other ridiculous drinking laws in Virginia that are enforced.
Uhh
The standard of "still on the books" is not one that should apply to laws. I mean, last I checked abortion was still illegal in Mass (MGL ch. 272 section 19). But then again, I guess you just wanted to be correct, so whether or not the law is actually legally enforceable is irrelevant to the disparaging point you were making about Virginia.
So in most communities, police officers,
firefighters, teachers, and other assorted municipal employees don't actually have to be residents of said communities to work there. But a manager of a restaurant that - gasp - serves liquor has to reside in this state.
No doubt about it - Massachusetts is clearly bizarro land.
Is this a new thing? Because
Is this a new thing? Because to work for the BPD at least, you had to be a resident of Boston. Maybe it's just for new hires?
Most communities
don't have residency requirements for police or other key workers - have revised my original post. Thanks for the clarification.
Not true I think
Veterans can get preferential hiring over Boston residents (of any color) for the BPD -
"The greatest beneficiaries of affirmation action within the Boston police department at the moment are not officers of color, but military veterans. A military veteran with a passing test score of 70 is weighed over and above a non-veteran score of 100 — no matter the non-veteran’s color, ethnicity or gender."
http://wgbhnews.org/post/ed-davis-calls-boston-police-hiring-overhaul-re...
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this - maybe they have to move to Boston after hiring, but there certainly isn't any benefit given to people coming out of the Boston neighborhoods to join the force which I think is a negative.
That doesn't seem to be true
That doesn't seem to be true either, or maybe it applies to recently separated vets because an old shipmate of mine had a bitch of a time trying to quickly relocate so he could become BPD. He was out for 2 years.
June/July Public Meetings of Boston Licensing Board
June/July 2015 Public Meetings of Boston Licensing Board
10am Tuesday 2 June 2015
10am Wednesday 3 June 2015
10am Thursday 4 June 2015
10am Tues 9 June 2015
10am Wed 10 June
10am Thurs 11 June
10am Tues 16 June
10am Wed 17 June Bunker Hill Day
10am Thurs 18 June
10am Tues 23 June
10am Wed 24 June
10am Thurs 25 June
10am Tues 30 June
10am Wed 1 July 2015
10am Thurs 2 July
10am Tues 7 July
10am Wed 8 July
10am Thurs 9 July
10am Tues 14 July
10am Wed 15 July
10am Thurs 16 July
10am Tues 21 July
10am Wed 22 July
10am Thurs 23 July
10am Tues 28 July
10am Wed 29 July
10am Thurs 30 July
Minutes by email available of the most recent Public Meeting of Boston Licensing Board, request at
http://boston.gov/boardsandcommissions/?boardid=59
I for one
would like to thank our PRM overlords. The last thing we need is for someone from New Hampshire, NEW HAMPSHIRE, managing an establishment that sells alcohol. If we allowed that, what else might happen?
Only NH
Has state control of liquor stores (well, actually, a lot of states have that) but only NH puts the liquor stores on the highway. "Here, have a fifth for the road." Do you sell water? No.
NH actually has a number
of state liquor stores in local communities that are not on, or immediately accessible from, major highways. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when staying at our uncle's cabin on Lake Winnisquam, I recall that our shopping trips into nearby Laconia usually included a stop at "Doctor Green's" (as my father called it - due to the building being the state colors of green and gold). Unlike the other stops during our shopping, I was always asked to stay in the car.
It wasn't until I was a teenager that I figured out that "Doctor Green's" was the family code(which my brothers and sisters still use to this day) for the state liquor store.
For many years before they rebuilt the Hooksett service plazas on the Everett Turnpike, it always amused me to see the two buildings side-by side. One read "NH State Liquor Store" and the other one read "NH Safety Rest Area."
Could be worse though. My best friend was telling me once about the beer stores in Canada that actually had drive-up windows.
Side note: The liquor stores that are directly accessible from the Everett Turnpike (I-93) and the New Hampshire Turnpike (I-95) are the reason we will never see tolls lifted from either of those roads. Once the tolls are lifted, the first thing FHWA will do is mandate the liquor stores go away - and will pull at least a portion of NH's funding if they don't comply.
Cite that tolls are necessary
Cite that tolls are necessary to have a liquor store at a rest stop?
Service plazas that sell things aren't allowed on any road that was built new with interstate funding. Many roads that don't fall in this category are toll roads (but not all -- there are service plazas on Route 128). And removing tolls doesn't affect that status -- look at all the plazas on I-95 and the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut.
I had to stop so my dad could get a picture of that
He used it in his slide set to talk to highway engineers about working with federal requirements for highway construction. NH insisted that the federal government should pay for that sign as it said "rest area" on it. The Fed refused due to the liquor store ad, and NH had to pay for that sign themselves.
It's where the customers are.
NH is only too happy to rake in vice bucks from the stupid stuff we kill ourselves with.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/7703983-95/nh-liquor-sales-hit-record...
The Portsmouth Circle store has terrifying volume, but they also heavily discount prices, so you get that strange spectacle of people grabbing shopping carts full of hard liquor for home bars.
The state is happy to undercut adjoining state revenue streams, which prompted Maine to require people to report things like Fridge purchases from there on a form to file with a tax payment.
Maine Staties occasionally stake out the parking lots to bust people who buy cases of wine and such for tax dodging. A well to do Masshole got nailed a while ago for grabbing a wine case to take to his Maine summer place.
NH is also happy to sell you fireworks and cheap ciggies, (that may have changed), and you just know they'll be a handful when they legalize weed in the next few years. Think of it as north country South Carolina, only more liberal.
PRM
>"I for one
> By polarbare on Wed, 07/01/2015 - 1:21pm
> would like to thank our PRM overlords..."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=PRM
Apply this regulation to landlords.
.
No thanks
I'm sure a rich landlord who lives in the South End or West Roxbury would be so much different than one that lives in Belmont or Weston. #sarcasm
We need less regulations on housing so it is easier to build more of it, all over the place, to make it more affordable. That's it. We don't need Boston2024 or at the other end of the spectrum, rent control.
Does this also mean that they can't serve that
New Hampshire brunch delicacy known affectionately as road kill?
Amateur hour attorneys
I can't believe an attorney would show up for the hearing like that, proposing a manager that cannot legally take the job.
Want an amateur.
A relative of
Lionel Hutz perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZoQFVVXV2s